January 19, 2007

Aaron Sorkin speaks about 'Studio 60,' the press and those pesky bloggers

Since its September debut, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” which
returns with a new episode 9 p.m. Monday (WMAQ-Ch. 5), has given
viewers a look inside the creative process behind a sketch-comedy
program.

Last week, several dozen members of the press, on a field trip from the
Television Critics Association press tour in Pasadena, got a look
inside the thought process of the man behind the show, Aaron Sorkin.

The end result of Sorkin’s hourlong aria to the critics clustered
around the giant oval desk in the “Studio 60” writers’ room? I just
don’t know what the man wants.

He said he doesn’t mind critiques or negative press. “It’s the cost of
doing business,” he said more than once. “Not everything is for
everybody.”

But it’s hard to square those remarks with several of Sorkin’s
statements on Tuesday. First, his contention that the press isn’t
writing about the content of his show, and is only focused on its
disappointing ratings, doesn’t ring true.

“When the people are reading, `Gee, this show is tanking,’ they’re less
likely to tune in than [if the pieces said] `Gee, there’s this show
that everybody’s really excited about,’” said Sorkin, who noted that
the show would have more of a romantic comedy feel going forward. “But
that’s not your problem, it’s ours. Hopefully the next step will be
that the ratings will tick up and you’ll start writing about that - or
even better, about the content of the show.”

But people - television critics, bloggers, television critics with
blogs, pretty much anyone with a computer keyboard - are writing about
the content of the show. They’ve written that, despite a promising
premise, many early episodes were heavy-handed and full of digressive
rants. And they’ve said that the show within a show’s sketches are,
well, bad.

A Los Angeles Times piece on Dec. 25, which included a collection of
interviews with comedy professionals and with members of a
sketch-comedy troupe reiterated these critiques.

That piece clearly got under Sorkin’s skin - he spoke forcefully about
it for several minutes Tuesday. It seems that piece doesn’t qualify as
“the cost of doing business.” Why? Because the people in that article
are not “real comedy writers.” And the writers Deborah Netburn
interviewed “are unemployed.”

“I read the headline and [I thought], `Does [Stephen] Colbert not like
the show? Does Billy Crystal not like the show? Tina Fey? Seth Myers?
Real comedy writers - do they not like the show? No, she wasn’t talking
about those people,” Sorkin said. “I would encourage you to go to the
Web site for Employee of the Month, the improvisational comedy troupe
that was complaining about the show, you will discover that they are
unemployed and disgruntled.”

I guess Sorkin skimmed over the comments from a comedy showrunner, and
the part in which a former “Saturday Night Live” employee was
interviewed. Another employed professional interviewed for the piece,
Ken Levine, wrote for “M*A*S*H,” “Cheers” and “Frasier.” In TV comedy,
you don’t get much realer than that.

“I am a fan of his work, was hoping ‘Studio 60’ would be better, and
would further hope that the criticism writers offer him would be taken
constructively and not defensively,” Levine said in an e-mail.

Still, the subject of online critiques of his work - which the L.A. Times piece cited - set Sorkin off again.

“I do believe that we’ve seen an enormous rise in amateurism,” Sorkin
said. “One of the things I find troubling about the Internet, as great
a resource tool as it is, and as nice as it is that we can all
communicate with each other, and that everybody has a voice - the thing
is, everybody’s voice oughtn’t be equal.”

“You people are credentialed journalists in here… There’s a certain
understanding that you had to be good to have gotten that job,” Sorkin
continued. “When The New York Times quotes a blogger, saying
`PastyBoy2000 says this,’ suddenly you give it the imprimatur of the
New York Times - that’s, first of all, lazy on the part of The New York
Times, second of all, incredibly misleading.”

But launching a broadside against The New York Times wasn’t enough for Sorkin. He also named L.A. Times writers - Scott Collins and Maria Elena Fernandez, specifically - whom he said had written negative pieces on his show.

That Dec. 25 L.A. Times piece, he contended, was “the third piece that the Los Angeles Times had done in four months about how people on the Internet don’t like `Studio 60.’”

As it happens, Fernandez’s piece, which came out in July, was about how Sorkin’s show had attracted a lot of Internet buzz - much of it positive - before “Studio 60” premiered. In October, Collins wrote one of many media pieces about how the show’s ratings were disappointing to NBC, and another Collins piece in September mentioned TelevisionWithoutPity.com in passing.

“I don’t want to get all Donald and Rosie about this, but in the thoroughly reported pieces we’ve done about `Studio 60,’ which includes a story about Sarah Paulson’s Golden Globe nomination, I’m confident that we’ve fairly reflected the challenges and triumphs the show has faced in its first season,” Kate Aurthur, television editor of the Los Angeles Times (which is owned by the Tribune Co.), said in an e-mail. "I'll leave it to the employed comedy writers in Deborah Netburn's piece to defend themselves, and as far as bloggers and equality goes, Mr. Sorkin has already gotten an earful from them already. But I obviously-- and shamelessly! -- stand by the journalism by the L.A. Times writers Mr. Sorkin named, Maria Elena Fernandez, Scott Collins and Deborah Netburn."

Despite Sorkin’s animus against some members of the press and sweats-clad Internet types, it’s not as though every single critique of the show has gone amiss. That stuff about the sketches being not-so-good?

“I’m not going to tell you all you’re wrong,” Sorkin said. “That’s one of those places where, if enough people tell you one thing, it’s got to be a little bit true.” The result is that he wants to more clearly communicate that “you’re not supposed to be finding this [sketch] funny, you’re supposed to be finding it a rehearsal.”

Sorkin did hit the nail on the head with one of his comments.

“I think that’s what’s unusual about `Studio 60’ is that the people who don’t like it are extremely vocal about it,” he said.

He’s right. People do get worked up about the show - because some think there’s still time to right this ship. And before you hit “send” on that angry e-mail, dear reader, I’ll pre-emptively agree with you - yes, the last couple of “Studio 60” episodes before Christmas did show improvement.

Even NBC chief Kevin Reilly, is glad the show is heading toward romantic comedy.

“That’s something we talked about,” Reilly said in an interview Wednesday. “All I said to [Sorkin] was, `We’ve got a phenomenal group of characters, you’ve got a phenomenal ensemble, let’s just cut ’em loose.’”

If that doesn’t work, at least Reilly won’t be blogging about it.

The following is a partial transcript of remarks Aaron Sorkin made to reporters on Jan. 16, on the set of “Studio 60.” I transcribed his answers to most, but not all questions. The audio was not entirely clear on some questions, so I’ve condensed the questions within brackets, to make it clear that they are not exact quotes. Warning: There are some spoilers about upcoming plot developments below.

[Why hasn’t the show caught on with viewers?]

“I’m not greatly sophisticated when it comes to ratings or crunching the numbers. But I can tell you this - our audience is 10 percent bigger than you think it is. The reason why is, we’re the No. 1 timeshifted show on television.

“If you don’t know what that means, that means that more people TiVo us and watch us later in the week than any other show on TV, and when you add the number of people who are recording the show and then watching it later in the week, our audience grows by over 10 percent, 10.9 percent. So we’re getting screwed by our own petard. It is a high-end audience, they all own TiVos, but Nielsen doesn’t count those people because there’s an assumption that you’re fast-forwarding through commercials, so they’re of no use to advertisers.

“Not everything is for everybody. And when I compare the size of the ‘Studio 60’ audience to the size of the ‘Sports Night’ audience, I’m delighted. Would we like to have more people watching it? Of course we would. But we’re really happy with the audience that is watching it.

“It’s the most upscale audience on TV. We have the highest concentration …. of households earning more than $100,000 a year. …

“Would we like more people to come to the show? You bet. But there isn’t a lot we can do creatively. Let me say this -- I think it’s a mistake to do things creatively in order to attract that audience. As it happens, we’re coming in to a period now … [of seven new episodes consecutively, and] we happen to be falling into a period where there’s a lot of romantic comedy on the show. Hopefully that is going to bring some people who wouldn’t have otherwise been interested.”

[Was that focus on romantic comedy intended all along or was it put in to make the show more accessible?]

“No, it was intended all along. I planted it in there with Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson’s characters, and I wanted to do some other things [first]. We had a curveball from the beginning, what I didn’t write in to the pilot was that Amanda Peet was pregnant. She told Tommy [Schlamme] and me that she was getting married … that she wanted to get pregnant right away and we said, ‘Good luck with that and keep us posted.’

[She told them before they got the results of her insurance physical]. At that point I kind of stalled for a couple of months, figuring out what I was going to do, was I going to hide the pregnancy, was I going to write her off the show for a couple months, was I going to incorporate the pregnancy. I chose the last one, to pursue a romantic story line between her character and Brad Whitford’s character, which is what you’re going to see unfold in sort of the first half of these seven original episodes, as well as the destruction of Matt and Harriet’s relationship, only to be repaired again.”

[What has NBC said about the show’s direction?]

“Kevin Reilly and Jeff Zucker have been as supportive as you can possibly imagine. They’ve not said, you’ve got to do this, you’ve got to do that, in order to get the viewers. They’ve sort of given us some target numbers that they’re looking for, but I can tell you that when we got the back nine pickup [for a full season] that Jeff called and said, ‘I’m not thinking about the back nine episodes, I’m thinking about Seasons 2 and 3,’ so it was a very encouraging call.

[What about the high expectations for the show?]

“I’m very proud that there were and still are high expectations for this show. It’s certainly better than the alternative. It’s not an advantage though. … The lion’s share of the press about the show certainly out of the gate … was simply about the show’s ratings and it was very difficult to get anyone past that. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, when the pieces are all about the ratings.

“When the people are reading, ‘Gee, this show is tanking,’ they’re less likely to tune in than [if the pieces said] ‘Gee, there’s this show that everybody’s really excited about.’ But that’s not your problem, it’s ours. Hopefully the next step will be that the ratings will tick up and you’ll start writing about that, or even better, about the content of the show. [There was writing about the New Orleans Christmas episode] and I really appreciated seeing some stuff about that. [And there have been pieces about Sarah Paulson’s character.]

[What about the backlash, and the idea of comedy writers not liking the show, etc.]

“I’m sorry, I’m taking a moment to think whether I should answer that question honestly or diplomatically.”

Reporters: “Honestly.”

“OK then, if I’m going to answer honestly you’ve got to promise me that you’re really going to hear me on this and you’re not going to run with anything. Listen, we get a lot of negative press on this show, you get a lot of negative press when you’re doing anything. We got it on ‘West Wing,’ we got it on ‘Sports Night,’ I’ve gotten it on the plays that I’ve done, on the movies that I’ve done and public comments that I’ve made. It’s the cost of doing business. … It’s not fun, but you get used to it.

“The [Dec. 25] piece in the LA Times, I’m assuming you’re referring to that, was different, simply because. First of all, let me tell you, it was the third piece that the Los Angeles Times had done in four months about how people on the Internet don’t like ‘Studio 60.’ There was a piece by Maria Elena Fernandez about how people on the Internet don’t like ‘Studio 60.’ Then Scott Collins followed that up with a piece about how people on the Internet don’t like ‘Studio 60.’ This was followed up by the piece that you’re referring to, which blew the lid off the story about how people on the Internet don’t like ‘Studio 60.’

“As if there aren’t people on the Internet who do like ‘Studio 60,’ and as if there are people on the Internet who don’t like other shows. But that wasn’t the most aggravating part of the story.

“The most aggravating part of the story was - the comedy writers she’s referring to - first of all, her headline was ‘Writers don’t like “Studio 60.”’ She was smart to ignore the fact that one week earlier, the show had been nominated for two Writers Guild awards, as that would have undercut her thesis.

“Secondly, the comedy writers she interviewed are unemployed. The [sketch comedy] troupe that she’s referring to which is I think called Employee of the Month - because I read this, I read the headline and [I thought], ‘Does [Stephen] Colbert not like the show? Does Billy Crystal not like the show? Tina Fey? Seth Myers? Real comedy writers - do they not like the show? No, she wasn’t talking about those people.

“I would encourage you to go to the Web site for Employee of the Month, the improvisational comedy troupe that was complaining about the show, you will discover that they are unemployed and disgruntled. Folks, it is not at all difficult to go on the internet and find opinions of disgruntled people, I don’t need to tell you that. So, that LA Times piece was a piece of nonsense.

“There have been negative pieces written about the show, which, like I said, it’s not fun to read, but I get it. I get when people write that there’s a smugness to the show, that there’s an arrogance to the show, I get when people write that the characters on the show take doing a television show too seriously. Again it’s not fun to read, I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a well-considered piece of journalism.

“This was nonsense and the LA Times should be ashamed of itself. And frankly, an arts section in a town like Los Angeles running a piece like that - that was just godawful.”

[What about the rants on the show about bloggers?]

“Oh, well, that’s a constant theme of mine. … I do believe that we’ve seen an enormous rise in amateurism. One of the things I find troubling about the Internet, as great a resource tool as it is, and as nice as it is that we can all communicate with each other, and that everybody has a voice - the thing is, everybody’s voice oughtn’t be equal.

“You people are credentialed journalists in here… There’s a certain understanding that you had to be good to have gotten that job. You had to have done something. If I start the Sorkin blog and if that opinion by your newspaper is raised to the level - when the New York Times quotes a blogger, saying ‘Pastyboy2000 says this,’ suddenly you give it the imprimatur of the New York Times - that’s, first of all, lazy on the part of the New York Times, second of all, incredibly misleading.”

[Has any commentary about the show being too inside and backstage resulted in the show changing direction?]

“There are a lot of people I listen to, people who work here, Tommy, and other people who work here. There are journalists I listen to too. When they say something I really think about it. You’ve got to be careful to not let too many voices in your head… so I try to stay focused and keep writing the show I intended to write, which is I think what I’m doing.”

[But the closes thing we have to consensus on the show, whether people like it or hate it, is on the quality of the sketches - that they’re not good.]

“I’m not going to tell you all you’re wrong. That’s one of those places where, if enough people tell you one thing, it’s got to be a little bit true. But I’ll tell you what my intention was, and hopefully I’ll get better at executing my intention.

“We never show you a full sketch. We show you a tiny shard of it, in rehearsal, when a writer is pitching it out. Even in the performance, we kind of slice across it for a second, and all I was trying to show was … to give it the feel of a sketch-comedy show. [as on ‘Sports Night’ they would have a few seconds of the sports show or on ‘West Wing’ they would talk about the Council of Economic Advisers, that kind of thing].

“I think that if you saw a random 10 seconds of [the ‘SNL’ sketch] Wayne’s World, I think if you saw a random 10 seconds of the Coneheads, or any ‘SNL’ sketch that you like, you wouldn’t necessarily say, that’s hilariously funny. You probably wouldn’t get it. So I do think about that now, when I’m writing that stuff, which is to say, I want to make it clear that you’re not supposed to be finding this funny, you’re supposed to be finding it a rehearsal.”

[It’s an expensive show to make, would you consider trimming the cast to keep costs down?]

“… I don’t think we’d throw anybody overboard to continue doing the show. It’s hard to do the show, we have to tighten our belts. There are some things we can’t do, we can’t go on location as much as we’d like, we can’t build new sets as much as we’d like.”

[On ‘Studio 60,’ the behavior of the characters seems very squeaky clean.]

“You’d have to say the same thing about ‘The West Wing’ too, couldn’t you? That ‘The West Wing’ presented an idealized, romanticized version of what the White House is like… That said, I can tell you that in these upcoming episodes, Matthew Perry’s character begins to spiral into drug abuse and there are things like that that go on.

“What you’re not going to see go on is ego battles like you might see at ‘SNL’ -- ‘this guys is getting more sketches on the air, he’s a hack, and she’s no good,’ that kind of thing. It’s just that I’m not very good at writing that. I have more fun writing a good group dynamic where everybody is after the same goal, they’re for each other, and they take their job seriously.”

[Is every character you? Can you talk us out of that idea?]

“No, I won’t, because I could confirm that, if you ever saw me writing the show, it’s a very physical thing, and I’m up and I’m playing all the parts. But I’m glad that you’ve given me the opportunity to put the lie to the fact that I’m in any way writing autobiographically. If you spent a day with me, you would end that day knowing that Matt’s character is not me, that Brad’s character is not me. … I’m really not thinking about myself when I’m writing the show.”

[What do you know about running a show that you didn’t know on ‘West Wing’?]

“I had an advantage on this, which was I got to start writing about five months before we went into production instead of five weeks, which is what you might ordinarily have. So I got ahead on scripts. What I’ve learned is that 5 months is not enough … [because] the train has officially run me over. This morning we began shooting an episode that I haven’t finished writing yet.”

[Just like the old days.]

“Just like the old days. But fortunately it’s happening on episode 17, not episode 7.”

[Audio of this question is not audible.]

“I think that’s what’s unusual about ‘Studio 60’ is that the people who don’t like it are extremely vocal about it.

“There have got to be people who don’t like Grey’s Anatomy, they just don’t write letters about it. They don’t devote entire Web sites to it. Just to back to that LA Times piece for a second, for a group of people who don’t like the show, they certainly watch it obsessively and can quote every line from every episode.”

[Would you ever write about stuff you know from working in TV?]

[He’s thought about writing an episode with three biggest cast members staging a sickout, something that happened on ‘West Wing.’] There really is a kind of interesting chess game that gets played. From a writers point of view, it was a very interesting dynamic, because those four actors and I were very close, we were a team, we were very close friends, and we weren’t allowed to talk to each other during that period. [But Sorkin doesn’t want to do an episode about that on ‘Studio 60.’]

[On writing for different mediums]

“The difference between series TV and a movie or a play is that if I’m not writing well, I can stop… They’re not wild about it, but they usually understand. And for me, the very hardest part about series TV is that you have to write when you’re not writing well. In our case about 8.5 million people are going to see it and you’re all going to write about it. But that’s the cost of doing business. And I want to stay in this business because I truly do love series television.”

[Where’s the disconnect between what you’re doing and the reception or ratings for the show?]

“I will tell you that ‘The West Wing’ was not a hit out of the gate…

“I think there was probably a perception about this show -- two misperceptions about this show, one, that it was angry, that it was a screed, that you were going to be made to eat your vegetables. And the other was that it was about me. I am me, and if somebody said there was going to be a show about you on TV, I wouldn’t watch. And I also wouldn’t want to watch a show that was coming from the pen of someone who was angry about TV.

“I’m like most people, I think, when it comes to TV, when I come home at night I want to have fun with characters that I like, it want it to be comfortable. One difference between this show and some other shows on TV is that this show is not good background TV. You can’t really watch it passively…. TV has a passive relationships with its audience, we’re [often doing other things while we watch it]. You need to watch it as if you’re watching a play or a movie.

[But doesn’t this show give you the opportunity to rant about things you don’t like, battles you’ve had, censorship, reality TV, etc?]

“It definitely gives you that opportunity. The trick is to not seize the opportunity. You don’t want to write a script that’s sort of a personal grudge against someone or something that no one else is going to be able to relate to. The first and only thing I’m thinking about when I’m writing the show is how to keep you all entertained for however long I’ve asked for your attention.

“Now, there are entertaining things in what you just said, there are stories about censorship and the FCC and the slow creep of reality TV that you can write, but you’ve got to - it all comes down to everything you learned about dramatic writing when you were school, there’s an intention and an obstacle and it’s got to be interesting.”

[Jordan McDeere has a talent for making her bosses angry. Could someone like her really survive at a network?]

Comments

It's weird, unlike many people I didn't love the Studio 60 pilot.
I loved The West Wing and it certainly played a part in my checking out Studio 60's pilot (along with the talented cast) but I didn't feel "it".
It was good but there was no..."oompf" if you catch my drift.
Over the summer critics and fans (of TWW, Sorkin, and the actors) were all raving about the pilot. Love was in the air for everyone but me.

Then the season began and the situation was reversed: I fell for the show (did not mind the sketches as I never thought they were meant to be funny as they were shown/written) while everyone else started hating it.
Btw, if I read one more rant about "The Cold Open" being an excrutiating rip off I am going to rupture an artery.

I know I should be offended by Sorkin's rants about the Internet and particularly message boards but frankly a part of me can't seem to care.
I happen to both agree and disagree with his point of view at once and I don't mind that situation because at the end of the day the show does entertain me, (most of) its characters interest me, (most of) its cast amazes me and that's my expectations from any show.
So yeah, I sincerely like this show even though its producer may not like to read my comments online.

But I've got to be honest, his "the thing is, everybody’s voice oughtn’t be equal" comment does make me cringe, not so much as a viewer (that's the part of me that doesn't mind *much*) but as a consumer (that's the part that does).

At some point the show will be sold on DVDs and then my voice will be my money and it is, and always will be, equal to anyone else's he deems intellectually worthy, smart or competent to buy his product.
I'd like him to keep that in mind so my ignoring his smugness and arrogance in interviews doesn't require any effort.

I guess I shrug off a lot of his attitude because unlike other producers/writers I don't have the impression that he just goes along with the flow of garbage on TV, just waiting impatiently for his check *cough*Lost's pseudo creative team*cough*.
He seems to have (too) high standards and a vision of entertainment and culture in general that are set in a long term plan and it's something I commend even though the execution of those 'principles' can be poor or heavy handed at times.
He seems involved, passionate and dedicated to his craft and while he and his work are not perfect, overall the end result does satisfy me (so far anyway).

Now if you allow me to be the devil's advocate, *puts on [word removed] disgruntled viewer and message board poster attire*, when he says "the thing is, everybody’s voice oughtn’t be equal", he misses the point that my voice has more weight than his when I talk about any show to my friends, acquaintances and co-workers.
They know me, they care about me, they listen to me. It's not an ego thing, it's simple human interaction.
I'm a TV addict, I watch more TV than any person I know in real life, my opinions do have more weight than anything any actor, writer, producer, network exec can say.
I've made friends watch Lost, I also made them stop it (it was their choice due to the unentertaining value of the show of course but they acknowledged I influenced them deeply). That's valid for other shows as well.
Whether he likes it, or even gets it, one's voice can be not only equal to his, or anyone else's in the entertainment business, but it can be superior to it his condescending ego be damned.
*takes off disgruntled viewer and message board poster attire*

Bottom line is that, for me, Studio 60 is a good entertaining show whose flaws I acknowledge and don't mind (so far) but like for any other show I think that sometimes the producers should just not do press as they aren't nearly as helpful to their creation as they think they are.

Apologies for the lenght and errors (English is not my native language).

But whether it's ego, all of the accolades for those shows, or just a serious case of myopia...he is really not being constructive about the show.

I think part of it is that much of it is autobiographical. It sucks when you lay your life out as a story - and people give it a thumbs down.

Parts of the show have been great, but most of the critiques are spot on and come back to two things: (1) The we're-saving-the-world-with-our-show arrogance from the characters is tiresome. Television can be great, but Sorkin's characters often come off as if God himself were speaking......and (2) The comedy sketches were awful, worse than a five-minutes-before-the-show-is-over SNL skit.

Part of it is also that the "behind the scenes" stories have been done, and the element of surprise is harder to sustain. We all have an idea of what happens on-set at a movie or TV show. I mean, it would be awfully hard to make "A Star Is Born" today and shock anyone.

Funny you mentioned the new direction for the show....I noticed the recent ads for the show completely re-pitched it as a romantic comedy/dramedy, focused on the two couples.

I looked forward to this show with great expectation, although I never watched one second of West Wing (I do sorta/kinda half remember Sports Night). But there was a lot of rigmarole about Sorkin in the news and he was the critic's darling for a good long while add to that Matthew Perry, who I really enjoyed in The Whole Nine Yards, I wanted this to be good tv. It was good, but it did not quite live up to the hype, at least initally. There was a lot of running up the street, but no turning the corner.

Then there was this episode where D L Hugley (who has really surprised me on this show) wanted to find a black writer for the show. As a black writer (not comedy), that did turn the corner for me. After that I was good n'hooked.

I enjoy a lot of goofy television shows and some good ones as well. While I do not think Studio 60 is anywhere near as high falutin' as a David Kelly show like Boston Legal (or Picket Fences) it is pretty high falutin' and I did like the asides regarding the right of center audiences for left of center television shows.

I hope it does not veer to far into comedy because I like that the show at least attempts to bridge that left-right divide that is currently being re-arranged. And it is not bad that it does that and it was not doing it badly either.

In the end, I like the show and as far as the critics and bloggers not liking it, whaddya gonna say?

Sorkin is really thin skinned about criticism of his show!
But most of it is his own fault!
The Matthew Perry character is based on Sorkin, the Sarah Paulson character [Harriet] is based on Sorkin's former girlfriend, Kristin Chenoweth. A couple of storylines involving Harriet are direct steals from Chenoweth's life. On top of that, only in the last few days I read that Paulson is an out of the closet lesbian. Did Sorkin cast her in the part knowing this & knowing it might set off the ex?

He seems to be taking all of the complaints as being about him, which in a way they are, because he has made the characters in the show extensions of himself. He wrote comedy on "Sports Night", but he can't write a comedy sketch & since that's what the show within the show is about, he tears at any critic that mentions that the sketches aren't funny..
He has only himself to blame for all of this, maybe that's the real problem, he knows that & it's killing him to admit it.

Concerning Studio 60, I feel like I see two different worlds. I watch it every Monday night and enjoy an incredibly well-written, well-acted show with a great premise, and then I read about how terrible it is the next day. I don't understand the logic. Just because Sorkin did "The West Wing" doesn't mean everything he touches will also become the "West Wing." This is a case where expectations were way too high, where people were expecting Studio 60 to win 4 Best Drama Emmys in 4 years too. That's not the case. The series has plenty of potential despite its flaws, and it needs time to mature into a solid part of NBC's lineup.

The sketches aren't supposed to be funny!!! Am I the only one in teh world who wasn't expecting them to be? I don't care about the sketches. THIS IS NOT A SKETCH COMEDY SHOW!!! It's really driving me crazy that peopel keep focusing so much on teh sketches when they take up so little actual airtime. It's a show about how you work on something and most of the sketches we see are in teh rehearsal stage anyway so LET IT GO! Personally I think he just shouldn't show any sketches at all and that would shut people up!

sorkinfan, I think you're missing the point!
The show within the show is supposed to be a HIT SKETCH COMEDY SHOW!
If the sketches are never funny, then why is the show within the show even on the air?
And yes, I know that SNL is still on, but I only watch the opening & Weekend Update parts of SNL. I still don't know why this show has been on the air for the last dozen years, the sketches aren't funny. I guess GE is happy with the profits from it & it's relatively cheap to produce.
Yes the West Wing was a gem, but Sorkin needs to delegate the writing of the sketches to sketch comedy writers. He can tell them what he wants the sketch to be about, but someone who know how to write this stuff, needs to be doing that, not a traditional scriptwriter, which is what Sorkin is!

Sorkinfan, I think the sketches within the show should at least show some potential to be funny when they are in the rehearsal stage, after all, we are supposed to believe that the Matthew Perry character is a comedy genius whose writing is going to save this show. Maybe Sorkin needs someone else to write the sketch parts of the show.

The underlying problem, it seems to me, is that Sorkin still thinks he's writing "The West Wing." The topics and conversations are exactly the same; he's just transferred them to the opposite coast and stuffed them into different characters' mouths.

See, it would be easier to accept that the sketches aren't supposed to be funny if characters on the show didn't constantly call them brilliant, and the show didn't show us audiences laughing uproariously. The partial-sketch excuse doesn't hold water, since it's the sketches we see the most of (the cold open, Science Schmience) that bomb the worst, and the sketches we see snippets of (Nicolas Cage, Nancy Grace, To Catch a Predator) that are more promisingly funny.

But the sketches being unfunny is only a symptom of the real malady, which is that the supposed comedy writers creating them are not funny. They are self-serious, utterly humorous people, and anybody who has spent any time around comedy writers, whether working professionals or committed amateurs, is qualified to judge that this rings false. If you have no familiarity whatsoever with the world of comedy creation, this is probably easier to ignore, just like it's easier to watch ER if you're not a doctor. But for people who actually write and enjoy comedy, it's like watching a dog meow.

I thought that Studio 60 would kick 30 Rock to the ground and I'm wrong. I'm now hooked on 30 Rock. In 30 Rock, they find a balance with the sketches and backstage humor. Also, they succeed best where Studio 60 fails in taking itself too seriously. I agree that Sorkin is not taking the criticism well at all. Once he does, the show might make it to May if it's lucky.

As the years go by, Sorkin's talent seems to be more and more overcome by his massive ego and his cynical bitterness. I have never read an interview where he didn't come off as pompous, self-important, and out-of-touch. It didn't use to effect his work - at least I didn't see it - but Studio 60 reflects his attitude & personality, and that's a shame. He doesn't seem to take any valid critism constructively at all.

Studio 60 has so much potential, and it's had some great moments. But it just isn't there. The speeches are often long-winded and jarringly misplaced, the comedy writers should be FUNNY or at least a little more lighthearted, the sketches are so unbelievably unfunny that they detract from the plot, and the romance plots are cheesier than your standard Hugh Grant flick.

Why do I keep watching? I don't know. I guess I hope that some of these problems will be turned around at some point. But that seems less and less likely since Sorkin seems to write off all critizism as unfounded and writes off the critic as "unprofessional" or unqualified.

I also agree with the previous commenter...who knew that 30 Rock would end up being vastly more entertaining? Long live Alec Baldwin!

There's a grain of truth to the idea that bloggers (as reviewers) should not be given equal weight to someone who has a little bit more experience, but only a grain - most of us know and enjoy what we get from non-industry or "amateur," if you will, blogs. If we want to read a great legit blog by a writer, we go read Mark Evanier.

It seems like an issue of ego and elitism, wanting people to acknowledge that he's an expert. Very silly: he trumpets the high education level of the audience watching his show, but then blasts the community tools used by the same group.

Similar to BKRay, I was very happy when we learned more about the *other* writers on the show and not just how amazing "Matt" was, as he continued to pull rabbits out of his hat. (Yep, I'm a writer, albeit in a side wing of "the business", by choice.)

I do find Sorkin's attitude towards other writers particularly distasteful. He criticizes that comedy troupe as being "unemployed" - which is ridiculous. How many great talents, from the Mercury Theater to Steppenwolf or the Groundlings, started as a group of people who weren't satisfied with the current roles they had, or wanted to improve together, and wanted to do great work?

Furthermore, one of the rules of Hollywood is that there are always plenty of talented people, even immensely talented people, who aren't working. It often has more to do with how well they sell their work or services, discrimination of some kind (age, for example), persistence, or just the luck of the draw. Sorkin may have been one of the lucky ones, like J. Michael Stracynski, but all the more reason why he has no right to ridicule someone as a "Radio Shack writer". If his show is really such a class act, he as showrunner should abide by the same standards.

I think critics would prefer the show to aim lower, like all the crappy shows that stay on the air for no discernable reason. Don't be offensive, don't be provocative, just be blah, and people will tune in to zone out.

Uh, Jo, isn't that exactly what critics are the most *critical* about? Why would they criticize Aaron Sorkin for doing the sort of things that they would criticize about anything else in television? Or are you just caught up in so much blind Sorkin worship to notice?

(And one can argue that Sorkin is guilty to every one of the worst aspects of another font of "quality" broadcasting, NPR, down to the Sting lute music--and this is not coming from an extremist of either camp.)

Why does no one talk about the fact that there is a show out there that's doing it all better that Studio 60? 30 Rock is inspired and their sketches manage to be funny and they're not scared of office politics. Honestly I've never seen a show (Studio 60) with less conflict or more of sense of self-importance. Come on over to 30 Rock. It's actually original.

The secret about "30 Rock"--you barely see the sketches on the "TGS Starring Tracy Jordan" show-within-a-show. And it presents other situations and conflicts besides "can we get the show in on time?" (OK, so "Studio 60" has the romantic subplots that Sorkin's now moving to the front-burner, but as long as that countdown clock's in the office, getting the show on will always be present.) "Thirty" works because it's a show about people who work in television, not a show about a television show.

In response to those who say the sketches on the show within the show aren't funny, I'd just point out that as much as I love Amy Poehler, I'd put Sarah Paulson's Nancy Grace up against hers any day. Plus Paulson's Juliette Lewis is hilarious, and the skit in which she's a talking head is conceptually very similar to - and just as funny as - "The Barry Gibb Talk Show" on SNL that came a few weeks later.

In response to the criticism of Studio 60's heavy handedness, um... didja ever see West Wing? That's just Sorkin. He's not a man known for subtlety in his work. It's fine if you didn't like West Wing, but Studio 60's no more heavy handed or preachy than that show. Emily Procter's second (or was it first?) season rant about feminism, the ERA and conservatism leaps to mind. It was a great monologue, delivered really well, but if you think it wasn't preachy I just wasn't watching the same show you were.

Sorkin's probably confused about the criticism b/c in Studio 60 he's created a Hollywood-based West Wing - including most the weaknesses of that show and admittedly missing some of its strengths, but not many - and while people loved WW, they're hating on S60.

I think Studio 60 is great! The point isn't whether the skits are funny...in this show, the skits are the backdrop, not the point. No one complained that the diplomacy wasn't realistic on The West Wing (which it wasn't)...but that wasn't the point. When I wanted news, I watched Frontline...when I wanted drama, I watched TWW.

Now, when I want sketch comedy I'll watch SNL (or better yet, go to a live comedy club). But when I want funny, smart drama at a higher intellectual level than most TV shows are willing to shoot for, I love watching Studio 60.

Also, I don't care if Sorkin is self-centered. If he creates compelling characters (which he consistantly does), I'm going to watch his shows.

I find the show really really great.
As a lot of pilots, this one wasnt great, infact it wasnt good at all. But now the episodes are way better. They have love stories, and things that the show didnt have at the start.
I really think that the people who only rated the show on the pilot should see the show again, as it is a very good one!

I was building my argument for "Studio 60," but Jeff up there pretty much made it for me. As one of the few people on the planet who has never seen "TWW" (sorry, Aaron Sorkin), I did make a point to watch each ep of "Studio 60" based on the cast, the premise, and the fact that I still mourn the loss of "Sports Night."

Yes, the speeches were way too heavy-handed in the first several episodes, but the rest of the sharp-as-heck dialogue made it worth those few moments when Sorkin would pull you inadvertently out of the show. And that particular flaw is improving each episode.

Does nobody else see the humor? The whole lost snake thing in "The Harriet Dinner" was pretty cool. And I don't need to watch the show-within-the-show -- the fascination is the process of creating it. The snippets of sketches they show you are just to remind you that there's a business going on behind all the personal and political stuff.

Guaunya writes: "In response to the criticism of Studio 60's heavy handedness, um... didja ever see West Wing? That's just Sorkin. He's not a man known for subtlety in his work. It's fine if you didn't like West Wing, but Studio 60's no more heavy handed or preachy than that show."

TWW was a show about politicians. The people who we charge with running the country should be expected to have political conversations all the time.

S60 is a show about making a comedy sketch TV show. Sure, people who work in TV will have political opinions, but the more pissed off they are about issues, the less any material they write about those issues will be funny. It's called "insufficient distance from the material."

And I wonder if that's what's happening with Sorkin himself.

(As another example, Bill Maher was generally funny until the subject of religion came up; then his lips started to foam and his funny started to roam, if you follow me.)

There's been a cognitive dissonance going on in the S60 characters from the get-go -- "The audience is smarter than the suits give them credit for, oh, except when they disagree with us the writers, then they're ignorant buffoons" -- and Sorkin's own comments are starting to look similar.

Not that I think that so many years after the fact anyone might see this or even take interest in it, but as s Swiss woman, who knows the US and its entertainment well, I must repeat, what's been said in all ways possible already: to have cancelled STUDIO 60 was having cancelled the probably most honest, very interesting, incredibly sexy and hugely entertaining TV series. Why do those of us, who love this quality entertainment always have to adjust to a lower level of TV-entertainment, because the tenor is ratings and nothing else? hello!! is this the dictatoreship of mediocrity? We are tired of lukewarm make belief. Let's have honest analysis in sexy fiction!
What a chance to be on the top floor NBC missed by pulling the plug.

Affiliate links disclaimer:

Clicking on the green links will direct you to a third-party Web site. Bloggers and staff writers are in no way affiliated with these links that are placed by an e-commerce specialist only after stories and posts have been published.